 Robyn Gwilt |
Metering - Rule of Thumb Is there a general rule of thumb when setting metering on your camera i.e. when is is best to use Spot Evaluative Centre-weighted Matrix (?) Why one one vs the other? And if you should be using spot, and have it set on matrix, is it going to make a huge diff to your pic? Thanks all. Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
Matrix and evaluative are really much the same; readings are taken from different areas and sophisticated algorithms are applied to determine the appropriate exposure. This is a lot more than just an average exposure, and modern systems can recognise and deal with very complex metering situations with amazing accuracy. Centre-weighted is a simpler and older system. It averages the exposures between upper and lower sections of the image, but b=gives more emphasis to whatever is in the centre of the image, on the assumption that this is where your most important features are. Partial metering and spot metering take the exposure from a very limited point in the image (often in the centre, but many modern SLRs let you select which point to use, and many also let you specify that the point on which you are focused is the point from which the measurement is taken (partial measures from a larger area than spot). Spot measurement is an ideal choice when areas outside the subject are unduly influencing the reading (especially large areas of very bright or dark or mixed light); many people like centre-weighted for landscape, but for most situation, the camera's evaluative computer will do the job really well, with the other systems there for the small proportion of subjects where it fails to give the results you prefer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Thanks David. So for general everyday/landscape I should stick with the centre-weighted and portraits/specifics go with spot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
I would stick with evaluative for both, Robyn. If the results are not what you want, then for portraits I'd move to spot and for portraits I'd use centre-weighted id evaluative wasn't working for me...but these would be exceptional circumstances. In general, when evaluative produces a result that is not what I want, I reshoot, still in evaluative mode but using exposure compensation to deal with the over/underexposure of my area of interest. An alternative is to use exposure bracketting to give three alternative exposures automatically (one at the metered setting, one over and another under the recommended setting).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Thanks Dave - you're a star! Sometimes I think some of these little buttons are just put on the camera's to satisfy the less technology challenged!! But if as you say you can use exp. comp and change some of your exposure settings..... why not. Thanks a mil.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
The advice was right, Robyn...except when I said I'd try use centre-weighted for portrain=ts, I meant for landscapes....just a typo. I reckon exposure compensation is one of the most valuable tools in your kit.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
Robyn - Without reading what David said, I'll say that spot metering is best. It's more difficult to get right, but once you learn it, you're good to go. Also, it using spot metering gives you tons more creative control.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Hmm, but do you use it across the board - or just selectively? I know that the 30D has fantastic spot metering - but just for portraits/specifics?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
Nope! Not selective, I use it across the board. I don't know anything about "the people's camera" but I know that on the Nikon's matrix metering, the camera has a database of (I think I read) 10,000 images it uses to compare your currently composed scene you're about to shoot to so that it comes up with a "good" reading. I don't want my camera making any decisions for me! Takes the creativity way down, not to mention you don't learn anything if you're letting the camera decide for you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
My friend Sipho and I will have to agree to differ on this one; matrix metering was invented because of the very significant limitations of spot metering. It's perfectly possible to get an adequate exposure with the "sunny 16" rule, and claim you have learnt more about lighting than you would using a meter, but it doesn't make for better photos and your failure rate for otherwise well composed, creative subjects goes up for no good reason. Creativity isn't limited by ignoring the quality tools in you kit; that's like having a set of fine carving tools and insisting on using a pocket knife for everything. Spot is 1970s technology and we really have moved on a long way from it. Evaluative is the standard and default mode for good reasons: it gives more accurate results more often than spot and handles a much wider range of problems with ease. How likely is is that 3% (or less) of the subject will reflect a light level and colour temperature that is a good match for the overall picture? Or even for the eye if you measure from the cheek? There are certainly situations where it is the best choice, but despite the fact that it is easier and cheaper to manufacture a system that measures from just one, dissociated area (my Pentax could do that in 1972) NO camera today uses this system as its default setting, and where a camera has only one system available, it is evaluative, not spot or even partial. That isn't a mistake on the manufacturers' part. Spot just can't match evaluative except in a few, unusual circumstances.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
David said "Or even for the eye if you measure from the cheek?" and he's right! But if I want to expose for that eye, I spot meter that eye! You can get more creative lighting looks when you know how to spot meter! Take a look a the pumpkins in my gallery! This was taken at high noon, but by spot metering the the bright spot on a pumpkin, I made it look like there was a spotlight on them in the middle of the night!
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Sale on exclamation marks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andy |
If I spot meter on a black eye, do I still need to underexpose? Do you spot meter only if you can find the mid tone subject to meter? One metering system is not necessarily better than the other.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
If you spot meter or matrix meter, the camera is still deciding the exposure the same way, only that the area that it is reading is smaller. So which ever one you choose to use, you still need to know when the camera meter is going to give the same false reading from an all dark or bright area(the same white car, black car example). So nevermind all the hoopla.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
To each his own. And Gregory - I got something to sale ya and it sure as hell ain't an exclamation point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens |
Ooops! I meant "sell"...
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
To Robyn's original question: there is a general rule; learn how your camera handles a range of subjects using its default metering system, and how to allow for the occasions when it doesn't give what you want; then add spot and centre weighted when you recognise these as better options (it won't be very often). If you make spot metering your default setting you will have to do more work in the computer to balance out extreme exposure discrepancies, but you will be sure that at least 1% of your photo will be correctly exposed (or rather, that the camera will have tried to force that 1% to match an 18% grey card). Two things in passing: Sipho...I think you must have taken the pumpkins off your gallery, but that spotlight effect isn't caused by the metering method: it can be achieved with ANY metering method, and since I assume it was the effect you were after and not a happy accident, under matrix metering you would simply have metered, added (or subtracted) a stop, and got the same effect. And Gregory, I agree with you that the photographer must be the master and control the beast, but the various systems certainly don't just give the "same false reading". They may even give different false readings, but when even simple point-and-shoot systems recognise back lighting and automatically use flash fill in daylight, and meters recognise and adapt to changing colour temperature. Matrix meters cope pretty well with black cats on white bedspreads. Now I'm waiting for subjects to be supplied with an inbuilt incident light meter!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robyn Gwilt |
Thanks all - it really comes down to know 'the beast' as David says I guess. Especially when there are so many options on each camera, and each click of the shutter has a different subject with a different light range. I'll go back to playing and learn my camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
But it's the black cat on a black bedspread is what I was talking about. And I didn't mean meters give the same readings. I meant the same type of situations where you get the same type of false readings. What's that stuff, apply directly to the forehead? Maybe for Sipho's ego, it's been flaring up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
Good point, Gregory... under those circumstances all metering demands interpretation.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||